Kasparov vs Deep Blue,what happened?

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

As I was so excited reading this topic in another thread in which it transformed to a debat regarding this historical match,I decided to open a new thread and make people post their thoughts....

So,be my guest,go on....
Dr.D

[bob]

As I was so excited reading this topic in another thread in which it transformed to a debat regarding this historical match,I decided to open a new thread and make people post their thoughts....

So,be my guest,go on....
Dr.D

The biggest issue was Kasparov had "associates" that gave him bad advice. From "Give fritz an hour per move to get an idea of what DB's search can see" on down. 1997 fritz was a far cry from what DB was capable of doing.

I still think game 6 is an interesting question that will probably never be answered. You can believe the "poor memory" explanation, or you can believe the "this was a computer trap that backfired" explanation, and you might even find other theories as well. I tend to believe the "computer trap" myself, although whether he believed he could win after the knight sac, or the knight sac was something he believed the machine would not play is a topic for debate also.

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

A rather debatable topic but my impression is that Kasparov was simply outplayed in this particular game....
Dr.D

[Spock]

Well I think IBM acted with honestly and integrity throughout, and any accusation of cheating is totally untrue. Kasparov simply threw a tantrum when he got outplayed by a machine. Its as simple as that for me.
It was in fact this match which got me really interested in computer chess

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

Well I think IBM acted with honestly and integrity throughout, and any accusation of cheating is totally untrue. Kasparov simply threw a tantrum when he got outplayed by a machine. Its as simple as that for me.
It was in fact this match which got me really interested in computer chess

Yes,I share the same thoughts Ray....
Dr.D

P.S.I got infected with the computer chess virus around 1999-2000,so I am interested in the events before that....

[michiguel]

Well I think IBM acted with honestly and integrity throughout, and any accusation of cheating is totally untrue. Kasparov simply threw a tantrum when he got outplayed by a machine. Its as simple as that for me.
It was in fact this match which got me really interested in computer chess

The whole thing was ill conceived from the beginning. It was a humongous publicity stunt and GK fell for it, since he thought was a demi-god (he never thought he could lose to force a rematch in the contract, am I right?).

There is very little positive aspects from all this. GK had an infantile behavior and IBM was just despicable. No third match, no log files... the whole thing was theater. Lots of money invested in what? 6 + 6 pgn files and some junk display in the smithsonian. The games were not even good! and some were a terrible spanking or just suicidal. Both, chess and computer chess lost with this match. IBM made a lot of money in the stock market though. That was the bottom line.

Miguel

[Rolf]

Well I think IBM acted with honestly and integrity throughout, and any accusation of cheating is totally untrue. Kasparov simply threw a tantrum when he got outplayed by a machine. Its as simple as that for me.
It was in fact this match which got me really interested in computer chess

The whole thing was ill conceived from the beginning. It was a humongous publicity stunt and GK fell for it, since he thought was a demi-god (he never thought he could lose to force a rematch in the contract, am I right?).

There is very little positive aspects from all this. GK had an infantile behavior and IBM was just despicable. No third match, no log files... the whole thing was theater. Lots of money invested in what? 6 + 6 pgn files and some junk display in the smithsonian. The games were not even good! and some were a terrible spanking or just suicidal. Both, chess and computer chess lost with this match. IBM made a lot of money in the stock market though. That was the bottom line.

Miguel

100%. Dead on. But I wouldnt criticise Kasparov. He did it for his mother. He was taken in a double-bind. He should have known better after what had happened with Bobby Fischer. Chess has no lobby in the USA. Now Polgar and the exSoviets rule the US market in chess.

[Terry McCracken]

Well I think IBM acted with honestly and integrity throughout, and any accusation of cheating is totally untrue. Kasparov simply threw a tantrum when he got outplayed by a machine. Its as simple as that for me.
It was in fact this match which got me really interested in computer chess

The whole thing was ill conceived from the beginning. It was a humongous publicity stunt and GK fell for it, since he thought was a demi-god (he never thought he could lose to force a rematch in the contract, am I right?).

There is very little positive aspects from all this. GK had an infantile behavior and IBM was just despicable. No third match, no log files... the whole thing was theater. Lots of money invested in what? 6 + 6 pgn files and some junk display in the smithsonian. The games were not even good! and some were a terrible spanking or just suicidal. Both, chess and computer chess lost with this match. IBM made a lot of money in the stock market though. That was the bottom line.

Miguel

Very True! Well said!

[mschribr]

The whole thing was ill conceived from the beginning. It was a humongous publicity stunt and GK fell for it, since he thought was a demi-god (he never thought he could lose to force a rematch in the contract, am I right?).

There is very little positive aspects from all this. GK had an infantile behavior and IBM was just despicable. No third match, no log files... the whole thing was theater. Lots of money invested in what? 6 + 6 pgn files and some junk display in the smithsonian. The games were not even good! and some were a terrible spanking or just suicidal. Both, chess and computer chess lost with this match. IBM made a lot of money in the stock market though. That was the bottom line.
Miguel

Very True! Well said!

I also completely agree.
The big question for me is how kasparov was psyched out. Maybe because he could not intimidate the computer.

As for ibm being honest. They said they were interested in the science. If they were so interested in the science why did they dismantle db? Why didn’t db ever play anyone else? In science you need repeatability to be verified as true. This makes me suspicious of the whole match. Why were they so quick to dismantle db? What was really going on behind the guarded doors? I don’t think we will ever know.

This is not the first time ibm tried to pull a stunt like this. In 1962 ibm claimed its checkers program beat a top ranked master checker player. It turned out the human player was a weaker major player. The reason the computer won was because the human blundered. In fact both players had many chances to win because both players blundered many times. Its all documented on page 94 in Schaeffer’s book 1 jump ahead.
Mark

[Terry McCracken]

The whole thing was ill conceived from the beginning. It was a humongous publicity stunt and GK fell for it, since he thought was a demi-god (he never thought he could lose to force a rematch in the contract, am I right?).

There is very little positive aspects from all this. GK had an infantile behavior and IBM was just despicable. No third match, no log files... the whole thing was theater. Lots of money invested in what? 6 + 6 pgn files and some junk display in the smithsonian. The games were not even good! and some were a terrible spanking or just suicidal. Both, chess and computer chess lost with this match. IBM made a lot of money in the stock market though. That was the bottom line.
Miguel

Very True! Well said!

I also completely agree.
The big question for me is how kasparov was psyched out. Maybe because he could not intimidate the computer.

As for ibm being honest. They said they were interested in the science. If they were so interested in the science why did they dismantle db? Why didn’t db ever play anyone else? In science you need repeatability to be verified as true. This makes me suspicious of the whole match. Why were they so quick to dismantle db? What was really going on behind the guarded doors? I don’t think we will ever know.

This is not the first time ibm tried to pull a stunt like this. In 1962 ibm claimed its checkers program beat a top ranked master checker player. It turned out the human player was a weaker major player. The reason the computer won was because the human blundered. In fact both players had many chances to win because both players blundered many times. Its all documented on page 94 in Schaeffer’s book 1 jump ahead.
Mark

You're right, the science wasn't important to IBM, the rise in stocks was all that mattered to them.

Terry